tv [untitled] September 20, 2014 2:30am-3:01am PDT
where the set back will be. >> yeah. >> i mean to me that i think that you get the... you can get the program, you are all looking for, you know, granted it may be some additional foundation costs along that ten feet on both sides but it seems to me that you have a concrete foundation in some areas of the driveway and of the garage, and then, you kind of get the neighbor's objective and you get the first floor and you get the second floor with a bedroom and it is just shifted father to the street and i don't think that it is enough to be a big impact to the front of the building. >> one thing if i may to note and they do have a tight floor plan on that lower level, and right now the stairs to access the master bedroom are in the rear and in the new edition and, so if it were to be brought back in line with the existing rear building wall they would no longer be, able to access in that area >> you could put the stairs above the existing stairs down
to the garage. >> which i why i don't like doing this on the fly. >> if they were stacked like that it would be access through the existing bedroom. because right now the stairs go down. >> so there a way to take and because you have the variance, but you can, work on it more in detail in the architecture and kind of exactly where that set back is? >> is there a way that we can make a motion and kind of punt to you and you have more details discussions with them on the where that line is for the second floor. >> yeah, we want to be sure that the commission's decision is honored and so, you know in my mind, that i think that even a five, simply going at the five feet at the second level at the back could be adequate and that may not be enough for the project sponsor and it could be as much as 6 feet and may be able to retain that existing stair up to the master
bedroom and it was concerned about, and it is a small, tight, you know, floor plan here and how can they keep access to all of the levels? >> okay, why don't we continue with commissioner comments. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> okay. i just want to talk to the architect and see if everything that has been said about it is correct. that it has been stated that while, you have already moved your project three feet back. >> that is right. >> if you want another two feet you will be back five feet and what we are saying is you have already moved six feet into the existing pitched roof. >> correct. >> section and so if you went back to 8 feet that will give you a total set back of 5 feet on the upper, which i think is a compromise that i don't know if the maker of the motion would support it, but it would help with the problem and it will give you a full five feet
of set back, that the neighbor. >> i don't believe that is what the neighbor indicated. >> sir, sir. >> i am sorry, you need to come up to the podium and one of the question was had. >> no, it was not requested. >> i will ask the other commissioners if that sounds like a compromise that will work for me. >> is that going to work for you. >> yes. >> and i think that it is important that we come back five feet on the top and not more because if we can't put the new stair and the new portion in the back then it is completely disrupts the first floor plan and i think that we can make that work and the additional two feet and slide that forward to the street and more than that is going to... >> okay, thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> >> i would like to say that i would ask the maker of the motion if that is acceptable and seconder, because it will determine if i will support it
or not. >> i will ask him to clarify what the two or three feet are could you go over that for us and it puts the drawing on the. >> and he has the access to the overhead and a pencil and he has got..., a draft the motion >> the final determination. >> okay. >> if i understand, and coming back towards the street another two feet. >> and that the ground floor... >> that is the proposal. >> but we have not heard from commissioner moore. >> is that in or confirms with the residential design team for
you? >> it is not, consistent to the letter with the direction that was or has been given, thus far. but, that is part of what this discussion is intended to do, is give the additional clarity and direction to that team, and applying these guidelines and these kinds of circumstances. >> and as an architect, the modifications which was a design team suggested, would they still result in the workable floor plan as you see it? >> yeah. >> and in particular, i'm sensitive to the architect's last comments. in terms of how to accommodate that connection between those levels. and if those floor plates are getting pulled too far apart, yes. >> okay. >> so, after a second thought, you would at least support it.
>> correct. >> okay. >> and that having been said, i think, that i would amend the motion based on what mr. smith summarized and what mr. gosman confirmed as this project moves forward i want to be sure because we look at and what we are deciding on today and that is drawing modifications that he verified with the department before he moves to the construction and goes to the dbi. >> yes, thank you. >> and commissioner... >> approve project as propose and eliminating two feet of the proposed extension at the second level. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye >> johnson. >> no. >> moore.
>> no. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes 6-1, with commissioner johnson voting against. >> and i will request the variance that the second floor be set back five feet from the current proposal. >> commissioners item 18 for case 2014.1009 d, a 300 wawo na street, request for discretionary review. >> commissioners michael smith. >> if you are exiting could you do so quietly, we have more items.
>> commissioners you have before you a request for a discretionary review, for the project at 300 wawo na street, located in the west portal neighborhood, the project proposes to construct a horizontal addition and a one story vertical addition, on a one story over the basement single family dwelling, the vertical will house a new master bedroom suite and the horizontal will provide a stair circulation between the floors. the dr is requested by the adjacent neighbor to the west, the dr requestor does not contend that the project does not comply with the residential design guidelines or that it will impact her property, but instead she has concerns about the process, as it relates to the rear yard compliance of this project and the bbn notification. regarding the rear yard compliance, and the staff of confirmed that the required rear yard was measured directly and the project as proposed is
code compliant. secondly, bbn is a block book notation and this is a public service that allows a member of the public to receive the notice before the planning department approves the permit for a property. and bbn are intenlded to provide, the requestor notice of application, reviewed by the planning department, and that they may not receive otherwise. and in this case, the dr requestor is also the adjacent neighbor. and therefore, was mailed a copy of the 311 notice as verified by the neighbor mailing list on file with the project. receipt of the 311 notice, also served to satisfy the dbn requirement eliminating the duplicate notice requirement, the dr requestor disagree and argues that she should have received a notice earlier as the bbn holder which is not the case. the dr requestor also argues that she should have received notice that the environmental application under which the
department made its determination, about the project, should have been noticed to her, upon its submitle also, as a bbn holder which is not the case, however the 311 notice also serve to notify the public that the department has made an environmental determination on the project and received the notice and so she was notified of the determination, and the dm sees no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances surrounding this project and once again there is no residential design guidelines issues that are being raised here and therefore we recommend that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> dr requestor, your team has five minutes.
it should move over to that. >> and so, is my time starting? >> yes. >> okay. and well, i think that, and i could miss the point of everything, and i feel that this is not zone compliant and on the very first page of the staff report, it is indicated that the depth is 91 feet, and so, let's see, this... if the depth is 91 percent and 25 percent of that is 22.75, or 22 feet and 9 inches. and if you look at this, they have they are saying that the
required rear yard is 21 feet, and 6 inches, and their line comes right to the point where i mean, the, the rear edition is moving right up to that point, and it is a non-conforming lot and there is a great deal that is lost in that lot already. and the garage that is in the back space and the area behind it that is inaccessible, and those equal, 531 feet, and if you come down here, this line encroaches actually, and it actually draws the structure itself into the non-conforming or, rather it defines that as non-conforming mass in the rear yard consistent with the planning code section 136 c, 25 a, i think is what it is. and that nothing can come into the required rear yard except
it complies with planning code zone or code i am exhausted and i tried to write something that i could have something available for you, and i have not been able to do that because i waited eleven days for an appointment, with the planner, and on the fifth finally of september i had an appointment but in any case there is a great deal going on here and the first thing is the incorrect fact saying that all that they need is 21 feet and 6 inches. but, that is being drawn in, and their line, it has to extend with the rear yard, and that line is going in to the side yard of that side yard is or needs, and i would ask if anything, if you do anything, that you would take a dr, and put or notice the special
restrictions on that. because this is, this is the side, and i don't know if you can see, the pictures and this side yard, this is a historic structure, and the side yard has stone and picket fence which is the historic feature, and if you look at the neighborhood residential guidelines, you see that it says, preserve historic landscape features such as fences. and so, that would need to be preserved. and, the whole question of the way that this line is being drawn at a slant, i really question that, back in 2006, when the neighbors wanted to put up a fence and you can see the story poles here, and someone chris howell of zoning and compliance and it said that the rear building line established the or defined the rear yard and i will put this
up here. and actually, this planning code section, 130 e, when there is an irregular backyard, you can average out the lot area. and it would make a very good lot that could be dealt with if that were done and then what simply is happening is that if you, this, well, if goes here. is that my time? >> 30 seconds. >> yeah. well, and then also there are issues with the environmental review. there is a significant drop in the backyard of a presip yus drop of at least 15 feet and it could be up to 20 feet.
i just, you know, i really feel that i have been in a sense short changed and i had to get a hold of the planner because there is a step missing here. >> okay, your time is up. >> thank you. >> opening it up for the public comment from public who support the dr? >> okay, seeing none, project sponsor your team has five minutes. >> my name is kim clash and, and i don't have anything to add other than we would like to keep our family in the city and this remodel will allow to us do so. thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> are there members of the public in support of the project -sponsor?
>> i am the architect, and i just want to. >> technically you are part of the team. >> i never turned off the team. >> yeah. >> so, the fence was alluded to and we are not doing anything with the fence. the landscaping remains, and prior to beginning the design of this project we worked with the staff to establish because it is a non-conforming, what the rear set back was. and it was establish and that is the one on the drawing. and that is the one that has been reconfirmed by the staff as mr. smith said and so i, i don't see that there are any issues. >> any additional public comment in support of the project sponsor? >> okay. seeing none, the dr requestor you have a two-minute rebuttal.
>> so i feel that the rear yard is non-compliant and i tried to get typed up a letter to ask for a letter of determination from scott sanchez and i still would like to do that and i would ask that you continue this matter, so that i can get some resolution, but that backyard is so tight there is very little space in it. and it is, just not consistent with the code, there is, and that is, you know, it shows one view of the backyard and, here another view of the backyard. and there is very little area there. and the amount of area that is required and i lost the piece of paper down there. but in any case, with that 91-foot depth and 25 percent required which means that it should be at 22, and 9 inches,
and they would, 1729 square feet of unobstructed rear yard space and so it is just... there should be uniform application of law. i... it... i didn't... i didn't find out about this until may second. and even though i went to a preap hearing in january of 2013. i heard absolutely nothing about it. even though on the... well... okay, permit details report, it said that it came in to the department on december 16th, and it had a finished date of december 19th and still, nothing, i heard absolutely nothing about it. and i came in, feeling that i should check and see what was going on with it on the second of may, and i tried to get a hold of the planner, and the
whole period of time, and up until the point the 21st of may. i found out that it was approved. >> thank you. >> your time is up. >> okay, thank you. >> project sponsor, if you would like you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> rather quickly, the dr requestor has said that there is hardly any yard back there. this addition has very little encroachment on the actual backyard. the land part about it, and the majority of this building, is on top of the existing building, and to the side yard, none of which will effect the rear yard of this building.
and the air flow will not be effecting any of her space. i just don't know, and i don't know how to address this. our backyard is not changing. this is for all intents all on top of the existing building. >> thank you. >> the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner moore? >> i want to ask zoning and administrator sanchez to perhaps explain to the commission about the rear yard so that we all... and i did not fully understand some of the what the dr requestor is asking for and if he could clarify for us and what it means. >> sure, thank you. >> and i did review the project with staff, and confirmed that the project is code complying. and the rear yard calculation here is 25 percent of the average lot depth and under the
planning code it is required to be parallel to the rear property line and that is how they are indicating it on the plans and the project is not imposed on that required rear yard or any variances. >> i will see that that is consistent interpretation of how the zoning administrator spelled out the rules for us. and it is very possible that the dr requestor has a different understanding, but that is not what guides us to consider. i expect it that you would say what you did, so that i personally could be and the issue of having received it and not having had an appointment and all of that is sometimes unfortunate given the busy schedule of of everyone else and that does not weigh in of how we will look at the issue at hand and so i feel comfortable of not taking dr and moving ahead to approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, i feel the same way, but i just want to clarify that by the staff report, that there
is a portion of the single family residence that extends into the 25 percent rear yard, but, the addition, does not make it less non-conforming, and therefore, it is not and the garage has already been there since the beginning and that is part of the structure that is non-conforming, and so i think that the general rule is that if you are not making a non-conforming structure, more non-conforming, than and it tasteful addition and it is modest and it allows them to make the house more livable and so i am fine with it. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to not take the dr and approve the project as proposed on that motion? >> antonini. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> johnson n >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richards >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> president wu. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes 7-0. unanimously and places on you 1
the, 2013.0433 ddd, and at 2853 broderick street and a staff initiated and two publicly filed requests for discretionary review. >> good morning, the request before you is located at 2853 to 2857 broderick street in the district and the project proposes to correct the height discrepancy on an issued building permit application that allowed the existing three story of a basement and two unit building to be lifted three feet and insert a two-car garage in the base the level, commissioners some of you may recall the original application to lift the building by three feet and as that project was considered by this commission and approved. and in 2011. and the discretionary review of
the case, 2010, and the original project proposed to lift the building for three feet from a height of 34 feet to 37 feet and that was the approval by the commission at that time. while the project was under construction under the issued permit it was discovered that the height plans were inaccurate and from a resurvey, the building was actually lifted three feet from the existing 37 to a height of 40 feet. and since the time of that original approval, the new sponsor has acquired the project and the property, this sponsor is now seeking approval of the application to correct the height discrepancies on the plan, and also, all of the project works into one permit and including a tweling and from two to one unit and aside horizontal addition and vertical additions and rear facade alterations and the scope of additional work was analyzed for one as the purpose
of ceqa and the project was exempt from the environmental review, jumping to the plans included in your packet, the packet, there are three conditions, first of all as the conditions approved 2011 building permit application and the second condition, shows that as built condition of the project as it stands today, based on a resurvey of the property, and the third condition is the proposed plans that consolidate all work proposed under one permit application and which is the subject application, and that is the subject of this dr. >> with regard to the dwelling unit merger from the two to the one unit and the appraisal was submitted by the sponsor that demonstrates that both of the units exceed the thresholds for the dwelling units and the merger will be able to be approved, and administratively for the department's policy and therefore, it will be exempt from the discretionary review hearing for the unit merger.
and at this time, the dr requestor are concerned that the proposed project exceeded the scope of the work of the original permit and the building should be restored to the original condition, and the dr requesters are concerned about the merger and the removal of the historic materials and generally the requestors are also concerned that the project has not received proper due process and that has not been served properly. in closing the department recommends the commission to the to take the discretionary review and approve as proposed, the correction of the height should be approved as the building was indeed lifted three feet and that is consistent with the previous approval and the proposed side additions will be with the public right-of-way and the vertical additions are actually within the existing building footprint and to the rear of the property and the project has been reviewed as one consolidated project wrapping all of the elements together in one project and that includes
my name is ervig zerestk and i represent the building next door, immediately to the south. we met once before in 2011 when you took the discretionary review and at that time, before us was a set of plans that depicted the building as 34 feets, and it has been incorrect since. what i am here today, is to address primarily the issues of jurisdiction and the legality of the permits. it is a threshold issue, before we can proceed in any way to the subnative issues which we have not responded to today, we have address the procedural and the jurisdictional issues and therefore, in order to not wave our rights and in order to be able to proceed in traditional venues, we have got to take this issue and jurisdiction
first and foremost. the issue of that we face today, is that in our neighborhood, we have never had a case like this before. lots of people have remodeled and improved their homes this has never been a case that we have seen. when we last met and after the issue was appealed and there was a ceqa appeal and it ended up on september 4, 2012, we assumed that everything was settled and that the project sponsor was going to go on and just build her building and things were fine. what we discovered was something different. there was an agreement that was arbitrated by farrell and they came up with an agreement that everybody felt that they could live with, at the end of the meeting of the board of supervisors, supervisor farrell, mr.